Johnson Wax Case Study
Harvard Business Review Case Study
Johnson Wax: Enhance (A)
1. How is Enhanced positioned? Does this position make sense? Why/not?
2. Would you recommend sampling? Why/not? (show your calculations)
3. As John Sherman, what would you recommend be done with Enhance?
Johnson Wax: Enhance (A)
1. Enhance is targeted towards women 25-45 years old with dry hair. During ASSESSOR's Advertising Recall, total unaided recall for Enhance was 76%; among those who recalled the Enhance ad, almost 50% recalled that Enhance was "for dry hair". The perceptual maps in Exhibit 3 showed that Enhance was positioned 1) med/high conditioning; med/low clean, and 2) med/high conditioning; medium effects on hair.
This positioning doesn't make sense. During ASSESSOR's Product Acceptance phase, the callback interviews asked respondents what they liked best about Enhance and "surprisingly", manageability was mentioned most frequently (instead of conditioning) even though it was not a main copy point. And those who made repeat purchases were more likely than nonrepeaters to mention manageability.
Additionally, in Exhibit 1, in women aged 25-45, hard to manage hair (dull/limp problems) were far more prominent on the Incidence of Problems than Dry/Damage problems. Dull/limp problems were an average of 63.3% (64%, 68%, 58%) vs. a 51.3% for Dry/Damage problems (55%, 53%, 46%). Enhance should position itself closer to the dull/limp problems, since its perception of manageability is also closer to that target.
The relevant perceptual dimensions outlined in Table A show that the relative importance of Conditioning was 33%, Clean was 27%, Manageability/effects was 23%, and Fragrance was 17%. According to Exhibits 7 and 8, Enhance was liked for Manageability (42%) overall, Conditioning by 11% (overall) and Clean by 5%. However, Conditioning was also disliked by 11% (overall). So conditioning was both liked and disliked equally on an overall basis. Yet Enhance was currently being
Johnson Wax: Enhance (A)
1. How is Enhanced positioned? Does this position make sense? Why/not?
2. Would you recommend sampling? Why/not? (show your calculations)
3. As John Sherman, what would you recommend be done with Enhance?
Johnson Wax: Enhance (A)
1. Enhance is targeted towards women 25-45 years old with dry hair. During ASSESSOR's Advertising Recall, total unaided recall for Enhance was 76%; among those who recalled the Enhance ad, almost 50% recalled that Enhance was "for dry hair". The perceptual maps in Exhibit 3 showed that Enhance was positioned 1) med/high conditioning; med/low clean, and 2) med/high conditioning; medium effects on hair.
This positioning doesn't make sense. During ASSESSOR's Product Acceptance phase, the callback interviews asked respondents what they liked best about Enhance and "surprisingly", manageability was mentioned most frequently (instead of conditioning) even though it was not a main copy point. And those who made repeat purchases were more likely than nonrepeaters to mention manageability.
Additionally, in Exhibit 1, in women aged 25-45, hard to manage hair (dull/limp problems) were far more prominent on the Incidence of Problems than Dry/Damage problems. Dull/limp problems were an average of 63.3% (64%, 68%, 58%) vs. a 51.3% for Dry/Damage problems (55%, 53%, 46%). Enhance should position itself closer to the dull/limp problems, since its perception of manageability is also closer to that target.
The relevant perceptual dimensions outlined in Table A show that the relative importance of Conditioning was 33%, Clean was 27%, Manageability/effects was 23%, and Fragrance was 17%. According to Exhibits 7 and 8, Enhance was liked for Manageability (42%) overall, Conditioning by 11% (overall) and Clean by 5%. However, Conditioning was also disliked by 11% (overall). So conditioning was both liked and disliked equally on an overall basis. Yet Enhance was currently being